Meeting Agenda Washington Invasive Species Council September 22, 2016 Bud Van Cleve Community Meeting Room, Luke Jensen Sports Park, 4000 NE 78 th St., Vancouver, WA 98665 Agenda: September 2016 Page 1 of 2 Time: Opening session will begin as shown; all other times are approximate. Public Comment: If you wish to comment at a meeting, please fill out a comment card and provide it to staff. Please be sure to note on the card if you are speaking about a particular agenda topic. The chair will call you to the front at the appropriate time. You also may submit written comments to the Council by mailing them to the RCO, Attn: Justin Bush at the address above or at [email protected]. Special Accommodations: If you need special accommodations to participate in this meeting, please notify us at 360-902-3088. OPENING AND WELCOME 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Call to Order Facilities and Safety Information Call-in Participant Check-in Review Agenda Chair HOT TOPIC REPORTS 9:10 a.m. 1. Council Welcome and Clark County Vegetation Management Overview Casey Gozart 9:30 a.m. 2. Executive Coordinator’s Report Justin Bush 9:50 a.m. 3. Council Member Introductions All 10:20 a.m. 4. Oregon Invasive Species Council Introduction and Overview OISC 10:40 a.m. 5. OR/WA Invasive Species Council Collaboration Discussion All 11:00 a.m. BREAK DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS 11:20 a.m. 6. Washington Feral Swine Interagency Response Updates Laurence Schafer 11:40 a.m. 7. Regional Don’t Let it Loose Campaign Updates Justin Bush 11:50 a.m. 8. Economic Analysis of the Impact of Invasive Species in Washington Alison Halpern 12:00 p.m. 9. Top 50 Species Review Process Justin Bush
22
Embed
Meeting Agenda Washington Invasive Species Council · Invasive species – plants, ... California Invasive Plant Inventory), in which species are ranked by a series of questions in
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Meeting Agenda
Washington Invasive Species Council September 22, 2016
Bud Van Cleve Community Meeting Room, Luke Jensen Sports Park, 4000 NE 78th St., Vancouver, WA 98665
Agenda: September 2016
Page 1 of 2
Time: Opening session will begin as shown; all other times are approximate.
Public Comment:
If you wish to comment at a meeting, please fill out a comment card and provide it to staff. Please be sure to note on the card if you
are speaking about a particular agenda topic. The chair will call you to the front at the appropriate time.
You also may submit written comments to the Council by mailing them to the RCO, Attn: Justin Bush at the address above or at
Summary: This suggestion will address the introduction of invasive pests of regulatory significance kept
in schools, or private residences as educational specimen or pets. Through successful development and
implementation of this behavior change campaign, the public will: 1) Understand the potential negative
consequences of releasing unwanted plants, insects, and animals into the natural environment; 2)
Understand Best Management Practices for disposing of unwanted plants, insects, and animals; 3)
Prevent the procurement of potentially invasive plants, insects, and animals as pets for home and school
use; and 4) Understand when and where to report occurrences of the species they detect.
OR/WA Invasive Species Council Collaboration Discussion
Discussion Points
Theme 1: Education and Outreach
a. Messaging
i. What messages are you promoting?
ii. How can we amplify our efforts by using consistent messaging?
b. Role of Social Media
i. What social media platforms are you using and why?
ii. Do you have an outreach plan?
c. Direct Outreach
i. What is the council’s role in direct outreach?
ii. What events do you target?
iii. Do you feel this is an effective use of council members and staff?
d. Engaging Citizens as First Detectors
i. Do you engage Citizen Scientists as First Detector Networks? Why?
ii. How can we better engage citizens?
Theme 2: Prioritizing Efforts
a. How are your priorities developed? What lessons have you learned from this process?
b. How do you incorporate newly detected species that were not analyzed?
Theme 3: Continued OISC/WISC Collaboration
a. What potential opportunities do you see to collaborate?
b. How should we periodically check-in?
i. Staff coordinating calls
ii. Physical meetings
iii. Bi-State Summit
1
Invasive Species Impact and Prevention/Early Action Assessment Tool
Species/Guild Name:
Through the Gate? Here Near Far Summary of Scores
Potential Max.
Score
Ecological Impacts 40 Economic Impacts 40 Human Health Impacts 10 Invasive Potential 33 Difficulty of Control 10
TOTAL IMPACT 133 Feasibility of Prevention/Early Action 50 Number of ‘Unknown’ Scores Recorded: Level of Certainty in Assessment: High Medium Low
Invasive species – plants, animals, insects, and pathogens – are a threat to Washington’s environment and economy, exacting a high price for their presence. These biological invaders can produce serious, often irreversible effects on our natural resources and natural resource-based industries; they may also harm the health of humans and livestock. While not all non-native species have aggressive or harmful traits, the sheer number of these species coming through our gates increases the risk of significant adverse impacts. With limited resources available to manage this problem, agencies and stakeholders must be strategic in their approach. In response to this increasing threat, the Washington Invasive Species Council has developed a ranking system to evaluate the impacts and potential invasiveness of invasive species to our natural areas, natural resource-based industries, and public health. This ranking system has been designed to be a robust and transparent procedure to aid the Council in (1) identifying the most problematic invasive species in or near to the state and (2) prioritizing Council actions. We created an impact assessment process by incorporating components from other assessment models (e.g., Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-native Plants in Alaska, California Invasive Plant Inventory), in which species are ranked by a series of questions in five broad categories: ecological impacts, economic impacts, human health impacts, invasive potential, and difficulty of control. In addition, in keeping with the Council’s strategic focus on prevention and early detection and rapid response as identified in Invaders at the Gate, we have included a separate assessment of how feasible it would be for Washington state agencies to take preventive measures or be effective with early action for a species. The first three sections of the impact assessment pertain to the severity of a species’ potential or actual impact on the natural environment, natural-resource based industries, and human health. These impacts may have been observed occurring in Washington or, if not yet here, in another state or region. The Invasive Potential section focuses on a species’ biological characteristics associated with its potential to disperse, spread, and flourish into and within a new area. The questions in this section provide a measure of a species’ potential to be invasive. The fifth section, Difficulty of Control, measures the financial and human investment needed to control a species. A higher total impact score corresponds to a greater detrimental impact caused by a species. The second part of the assessment, the Current Ability to Prevent/Take Early Action section, asks questions related to entry and transport pathways, current distribution, and policy and outreach measures already in place to facilitate efforts to conduct prevention measures or an effective rapid response. A higher score for Current Ability to
2
Prevent/Take Early Action corresponds to a greater likelihood of Washington state agencies being able to effectively implement prevention measures or conduct early action on a species. For most questions, scores range from 0 to 10 points. This numeric spread was adapted from Alaska’s ranking system and chosen to highlight relative differences among species. Any score of ‘unknown’ is given a numeric score of 1 and incorporated into the overall score. The number of unknown responses are recorded and used to determine the level of certainty in the assessment (i.e., high, medium, low). WORKSHEET IS IT THROUGH THE GATE?
Here Species has established populations in Washington.Near Species has established populations in western U.S. region and similar habitat exists in
Washington or species has been identified entering Washington through pathways but is not yet established.
Far Species has established populations in areas outside of western U.S. region that have climate conditions similar to Washington.
IMPACTS A score of ‘unknown’ will be given a numeric score of 1. 1. ____ ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
____ Impact on ecosystem processes
A. No impact on ecosystem processes. 0 B. Influences ecosystem processes to a minor degree (e.g., has a perceivable but mild influence on soil nutrient availability).
3
C. Causes significant alteration of ecosystem processes (e.g., increases sedimentation rates along streams or coasts, reduces areas of open water important to waterfowl, alters water chemistry, alters rate of water retention, reduces ecosystem productivity).
7
D. Causes major, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of ecosystem processes (e.g., alters geomorphology, hydrology, or fire frequency; fixes substantial levels of nitrogen in the soil which favors non-native species).
10
U. Unknown Comments:
____ Impact on community composition, structure, and interactions
A. No impact on community composition, structure, and interactions. 0 B. Influences community composition, structure, and interactions (e.g., reduces the number of individuals in one or more native species).
3
C. Causes significant alteration of community composition, structure, and interactions (e.g., produces a significant reduction in the population size of one or more native species).
7
D. Causes major alteration in community composition, structure, and interactions (e.g., forms a complete monotype, results in the extirpation of one or more native species reducing biodiversity or changing composition towards exotic species).
10
U. Unknown Comments:
3
____ Impact on genetic integrity of native species/potential for hybridization
A. No impact on genetic integrity of native species/no potential for hybridization. 0 B. Known to hybridize with one or more native species and produce sterile offspring that lower the reproductive output of native species.
5
C. Known to hybridize with one or more native species and produce fertile offspring that can outcompete native species.
10
U. Unknown Comments:
____ Impact on federal or state species of concern (SOC) or high-value/rare ecological
communities as defined by the Washington Natural Heritage Program
A. No impact on SOC or high-value/rare ecological communities. 0 B. Causes detrimental impact on SOC species or high-value/rare communities. 5 C. Causes extirpation of one or more SOC species or eradication of a high-quality/ rare ecological community.
10
U. Unknown Comments:
2. ____ ECONOMIC IMPACT
____ Impact on agricultural/aquaculture industry
A. No impact on agriculture or aquaculture. 0 B. Causes minor impact on agriculture or aquaculture (e.g., somewhat reduced production and crop yields, reduced forage for livestock).
3
C. Causes significant impact on agriculture or aquaculture (e.g., major reduction in production and crop yields, loss of livestock, loss of markets by contaminants, genetic integrity of crop species, damage to water diversion system).
7
D. Potential to shut-down portions of the industry (could be due to regulatory measure).
10
U. Unknown Comments:
____ Impact on forest products industry
A. No impact to forest products industry. 0 B. Causes minor impact to forest products industry (e.g., somewhat reduced timber and other forest products yields, small increase in susceptibility to fire).
3
C. Causes significant impact to forest products industry (e.g., major reduction in timber and other forest product yields, significant increase in susceptibility to fire).
7
D. Potential to shut-down portions of the industry (could be due to quarantine or other regulatory measure).
10
U. Unknown
Comments:
4
____ Impact on physical infrastructure
A. No impact on physical infrastructure. 0 B. Causes minor impact on physical infrastructure (e.g., minor damage and/or impediments to dams, roads, railways, fences, power lines, flood control ditches, aquaculture equipment).
3
C. Causes significant impact on physical infrastructure (e.g., major damage and/or impediments to dams, roads, railways, power lines, aquaculture equipment).
7
D. Potential to render parts of physical infrastructure unusable, replacement costs would be extreme.
10
U. Unknown Comments:
____ Impact on recreational sector
A. No impact on recreational opportunities. 0 B. Causes detrimental impact on recreational opportunities (e.g., diminished opportunities for camping, biking, hiking, boating, fishing/shellfish gathering, birding, hunting).
5
C. Elimination of one or more recreational opportunities. 10 U. Unknown
Comments:
3. ____ HUMAN HEALTH IMPACT
A. No impact on human health. 0 B. Causes physical injury (e.g., thorns, shells of zebra mussel) or provides habitat for a disease vector or organism.
5
C. Is a human disease vector or is a disease organism. May also cause individual mortality (e.g., accidental ingestion of poison hemlock, West Nile Virus).
10
U. Unknown
Comments:
4. ____ INVASIVE POTENTIAL
____ Rate of spread with no management
A. Does not occur – species does not spread within suitable habitat. 0 B. Actual or potential slow rate of spread within suitable habitat. 3 C. Actual or potential moderate rate of spread within suitable habitat. 7 D. Actual or potential rapid rate of spread (doubling in < 10 years) within suitable habitat.
10
U. Unknown
Comments:
5
____ Natural ability for dispersal beyond parent population
A. Does not occur. 0 B. Infrequent or inefficient dispersal (occurs occasionally despite lack of adaptations).
3
C. Efficient dispersal occurs but population remains within a natural boundary (such as a waterbody or natural area surrounded by human development).
7
D. Numerous opportunities for dispersal (species has ability to move across natural barriers or has adaptations such as wings or hooked fruit-coats that facilitate dispersal).
10
U. Unknown
Comments:
____ Habitat specialization (How far-reaching can infestation become/potential distribution)
A. Highly specialized habitat requirements (species is found in only one ecotype or ecological niche).
0
B. Moderately specialized habitat requirements (species is found in 2-3 ecotypes or ecological niches).
5
C. General habitat requirements (species occupies a wide range of ecotypes or ecological niches).
10
U. Unknown
Comments:
____ Other species in the genus invasive
A. No. 0 B. Yes. 3 U. Unknown
Comments:
5. ____ DIFFICULTY OF CONTROL – LEVEL OF EFFORT REQUIRED
A. Management is not required (e.g., species does not persist). 0 B. Management is relatively easy and inexpensive; requires a minor investment in human and financial resources.
3
C. Management requires a major short-term investment of human and financial resources, or a moderate long-term investment.
7
D. Management requires a major, long-term investment of human and financial resources.
10
U. Unknown
Comments:
Total Impact Score ____
6
CURRENT ABILITY TO PREVENT/TAKE EARLY ACTION
____ Potential for entry into and transport within Washington via human activities (both directly and indirectly – possible mechanisms include commercial sales, use as forage/ revegetation, aquaculture, biological supply, horticulture, transport on boats, etc.)
A. High - numerous pathways for entry into and transport within Washington exist and species is routinely identified traveling on these pathways.
0
B. Moderate - some entry into and transport pathways within Washington exist and species is occasionally identified on these pathways.
3
C. Low - entry and transport pathways are infrequent and inefficient. 7 D. Does not occur. 10 U. Unknown
Comments:
____ Regulatory barriers to prevent entry into and transport within Washington
A. No or minor regulatory restrictions on organisms/host and no surveillance. 0 B. No or minor regulatory restrictions on organisms/host with surveillance. 3 C. Regulatory oversight on organisms/host with restricted trade. 5 D. Trade and/or transport of organisms/hosts illegal. 7 E. Strict prohibition on organisms/host and some infrastructure for interception. 10 U. Unknown
Comments:
____ Current distribution in Washington
A. Widely distributed throughout state. 0 B. Regionally distributed. 3 C. More than one infestation known spread within one or multiple watersheds. 5 D. Isolated infestation, 1-3 known locations encompassing fewer than 50 acres. 7 E. Not present. 10 U. Unknown
Comments:
____ Degree to which control is mandated
A. No regulatory barriers, voluntary control may or may not be encouraged. 0 B. Mandatory control at local level. 3 C. Mandatory containment of species where regionally established and mandatory control of species where not yet established.
7
D. Mandatory eradication of species. 10 U. Unknown
Comments:
7
____ Current efforts for education and outreach
A. No education and outreach efforts are undertaken for this species. 0 B. Some education materials exist and passive outreach occurs (e.g., signs posted at public access points, information cards made available at public events).
3
C. Education materials exist and outreach occurs sporadically and/or after a new species or infestation is discovered.
7
D. Education and outreach materials and programs exist and are actively provided to targeted audiences before the species or a new infestation is discovered.
10
U. Unknown Comments:
____ Total Current Ability to Prevent/Take Early Action Score
Far 46. Wood-boring beetles 47. VHS type IVb 48. Water chestnut 49. Asian carp 50. Northern snakehead fish Lesser Impact Greater
Harder
Ability to Prevent
Easier
Enhance Prevention Strategies Focused Control in Highvalue Areas
Promote Awareness Support Detection and Control Efforts
Invasive species constitute one of the gravest threats to Washington’s plants, animals, and businesses dependent on the rich biodiversity here.
Two critical parts to managing invasions are:
1. Identifying the species that threaten resources
2. Prioritizing species for management action
To better manage invasions, the Washington Invasive Species Council developed an assessment process to provide a transparent, repeatable, and credible basis for the council and partner agencies to prioritize management actions for invasive species (see assessment tool for more details).
All taxonomic groups are represented in the council’s assessment process, not just plants or marine species as seen in other assessments. Based on bestprofessional judgment and science, this is a management tool to categorize invasive species of greatest threat to Washington and to guide council action.
The Scores The assessment provides two scores for each species:
rapid response. The movement of a species on the graph will be important to enable the council to be adaptive in implementing its actions.
Creating the List A workgroup of invasive species professionals, each with expertise in a different taxonomic group (e.g., terrestrial plants, insects, aquatic animals), came together and identified species that pose the greatest threat to Washington’s environment, economy, and human health. While most of the species on the list already live in Washington, some are in the western United States as well as outside the western United States but in areas with similar climate conditions.
This is a dynamic list, which will be revisited and re‐evaluated annually. At that time, new species posing serious risk to Washington will be added to the list and new information will be incorporated into species assessments.
How the List will be Used The grid will guide council action, such as looking at the current ability to prevent new infestations, making policy
• An impact score that relates to a species’ environmental, economic, and human health threat
• A prevention score that relates to an agency’s ability to take preventative or early action for that species
For example, the higher the impact score, the greater the threat is to Washington’s environment, economy, human health, or a combination of them. The higher the prevention score, the greater the opportunity for an agency to prevent establishment of the species or the greater the agency’s ability to respond quickly to new infestations.
Both of these scores are plotted on a management grid to inform the council on future actions to take and to track the effectiveness of those actions. The actual scores are less important than the relative difference among species and the change in score over time.
The scores also will serve as a baseline against which to measure how effective the actions of the council and other agencies are in reducing a species’ impact and improving the ability of state agencies to prevent new species from establishing, and to conduct a
recommendations, and identifying where more management or education is needed.
It is intended also to:
• Provide a uniform methodology for categorizing invasive species.
• Provide a clear explanation of the process used to evaluate and categorize species.
• Provide flexibility so the criteria can be adapted to the needs of different regions or organizations.
Lower impact Higher prevention ability
Management actions:
Promote awareness and encourage citizen action.
Higher impact Higher prevention ability
Management actions:
Support detection and control efforts and prepare response
plans.
Lower impact Lower prevention ability
Management action:
Focus control on species in high-value sites.
Higher impact Lower prevention ability
Management actions:
Prepare response plans, identify regulatory gaps, and enhance prevention strategies through policy, education, and funding.
• Identify where more information may be needed.
• Educate about the impacts of invasive species and the ability to prevent them.
Meanwhile, the graph is not intended to:
• Represent a scientifically‐based risk assessment (this is an assessment based on best professional judgment).
• Produce a list that itself has regulatory force, though regulatory agencies may use the information to modify existing lists.
• Provide lists for any region because the invasiveness of species will differ from one region to another depending on geography, climate, ecosystems present, and other factors.
How to Read the Grid The grid is divided into four sections based on high and low impact scores and high and low prevention scores. Management actions presented in the quadrants then pertain to the group of species falling there.
More information may be found at www.InvasiveSpecies.wa.gov.
Invasive Species Management Priorities
Recreation and Conservation Funding Board Washington Invasive Species Council